This took place before George Floyd, so maybe an exercise for feigned outrage. It comes down to a 911 call, man with a gun. Police roll up, Javier Torres runs with a pizza box and a gun in his waistband. Cops give chase, and Javier had ample opportunities to drop the gun. Javier had the gun in his hand (running with a gun in your waistband without a holster is difficult) when he runs into a cop, and he gets shot-once. The fine upstanding people report that he was shot unarmed. And people think the cops should be de-funded.

But it goes to show you how news gets manipulated, whether it be by the media, social media, word of mouth

Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhn9doDVIiw

QAnon and Truther garbage's continued existence is enough for me, thanks.

Aaron747 wrote:

QAnon and Truther garbage's continued existence is enough for me, thanks.

Makes one wonder how and why noone from a heavily armed, conspiring to commit a crime, milita terrorist gang was shot during the arrest....

Best regards
Thomas

Do we really need any more lessons after watching what the NYPost did yesterday by not vetting a story out and just running with it?

What it all means is that people need to have their BS detectors turned on and paying attention to those that would manipulate them.

casinterest wrote:

Do we really need any more lessons after watching what the NYPost did yesterday by not vetting a story out and just running with it?

What it all means is that people need to have their BS detectors turned on and paying attention to those that would manipulate them.

I think you mis-spelled "The Atlantic".

Pyrex wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Do we really need any more lessons after watching what the NYPost did yesterday by not vetting a story out and just running with it?

What it all means is that people need to have their BS detectors turned on and paying attention to those that would manipulate them.

I think you mis-spelled "The Atlantic".

No it is spelled NYPost "AKA no responsible journalists"

People buy products they do not need or even actively harm themselves all the time.

We are proud of our 'marketplace of ideas' that gives a voice to anyone with something to say.

It follows some people will buy and propagate ideas that are counterproductive or harmful.

Caveat Emptor applies to all things. Media, social media included.

Think, review multiple sources.

Tugg

Pyrex wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Do we really need any more lessons after watching what the NYPost did yesterday by not vetting a story out and just running with it?

What it all means is that people need to have their BS detectors turned on and paying attention to those that would manipulate them.

I think you mis-spelled "The Atlantic".

Bless your heart. Comparing the Atlantic to the trashy NYP, really?

N867DA wrote:

People buy products they do not need or even actively harm themselves all the time.

We are proud of our 'marketplace of ideas' that gives a voice to anyone with something to say.

It follows some people will buy and propagate ideas that are counterproductive or harmful.

I agree, people are sometimes stupid or emotional. The problem however is that social media actively exploits this human trait to keep us engaged. Each user has their own "reality" shown to them by social media. For example, Google searches are different based on location; The movie "The Social Dilemma" uses the example of searching for "climate change is" and letting it auto-complete. In liberal areas, it will auto complete to "climate change is a danger" and in conservative areas to "climate change is a hoax." How will the two sides ever come to an agreement if they are given different sets of information? This is not for a greater good, its so the social media companies and their clients can make money.

bgm wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Do we really need any more lessons after watching what the NYPost did yesterday by not vetting a story out and just running with it?

What it all means is that people need to have their BS detectors turned on and paying attention to those that would manipulate them.

I think you mis-spelled "The Atlantic".

Bless your heart. Comparing the Atlantic to the trashy NYP, really?

At least faking e-mails, photos, etc. (if that is indeed what they did - nobody knows for sure yet) takes Dan Rather levels of effort (even more if they want to avoid rookie mistakes like having them made in MS Word), shows much more commitment than just making up an anonymous source.

So a man not pointing a gun at anyone is shot dead but two people pointing guns at others are given a standing ovation at a right wing rally. Armed domestic terrorists storm the state house in Michigan and police do nothing. But, yeah, let's all demonize the guy who had a gun in his waistband.

Another question we need to be asking is: why did cops decide to take away his Second Amendment rights? Why did the cops decide they are selective enforcers of Second Amendment rights?

Kt seems this NYP story is unraveling quickly. First, it contains many hallmarks of professional intelligence disinformation work. See this story here and the opinions cited therein regarding the signs:
https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-l ... ce-2020-10

Next, this comes the day after the Russian probe fizzled out that was supposed to result in the public executions of Biden, Hillary and Obama in the Rose Garden. No dice, no story on Fox. Then we see that the people behind this story "leaking" to the NYP are Steve Bannon and Giuliani, come on people! FFS, even 19060-level AI would've flagged this story as mega bullshit with a 99% confidence score. And how the hell did Rudy and Bannon not get this stuff into the hands of the Senate Report that turned up exactly 0% influence pending influence on Biden, Hunter and Burisma just last month?

The GOP is literally licking the bottom of the barrel at this point.

Speaking of people being manipulated and duped, I wonder how Comet Pizza is doing these days. Has anyone tried to shoot it up recently?

Newark727 wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

At least faking e-mails, photos, etc. (if that is indeed what they did - nobody knows for sure yet) takes Dan Rather levels of effort (even more if they want to avoid rookie mistakes like having them made in MS Word), shows much more commitment than just making up an anonymous source.

Is "our liars are better than yours" really what we've stooped to at this point?

Hard to argue NY Post is better at lying than the Atlantic, when the Atlantic managed to get their lies immediately spread out over all major media, domestically and internationally, when the NY Post got banned from disseminating their possible lies. The whole point of a lie is to convince people that what you are speaking is the truth, in that regards the Atlantic was a lot more effective.

Pyrex wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

At least faking e-mails, photos, etc. (if that is indeed what they did - nobody knows for sure yet) takes Dan Rather levels of effort (even more if they want to avoid rookie mistakes like having them made in MS Word), shows much more commitment than just making up an anonymous source.

Is "our liars are better than yours" really what we've stooped to at this point?

Hard to argue NY Post is better at lying than the Atlantic, when the Atlantic managed to get their lies immediately spread out over all major media, domestically and internationally, when the NY Post got banned from disseminating their possible lies. The whole point of a lie is to convince people that what you are speaking is the truth, in that regards the Atlantic was a lot more effective.

Which article in the Atlantic would you be referring to? And how far was said article disseminated into the Twitter verse by rabid misinformation carriers?

casinterest wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

Is "our liars are better than yours" really what we've stooped to at this point?

Hard to argue NY Post is better at lying than the Atlantic, when the Atlantic managed to get their lies immediately spread out over all major media, domestically and internationally, when the NY Post got banned from disseminating their possible lies. The whole point of a lie is to convince people that what you are speaking is the truth, in that regards the Atlantic was a lot more effective.

Which article in the Atlantic would you be referring to? And how far was said article disseminated into the Twitter verse by rabid misinformation carriers?

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/m ... ue-n903238

Very far indeed...

casinterest wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Do we really need any more lessons after watching what the NYPost did yesterday by not vetting a story out and just running with it?

What it all means is that people need to have their BS detectors turned on and paying attention to those that would manipulate them.

I think you mis-spelled "The Atlantic".

No it is spelled NYPost "AKA no responsible journalists"

A news media that doesn´t even bother contacting the subject of the story for comment before publishing knows what they are going to report is fake. The NYPost didn´t contact the Bidens....

edit: Uops

The Hill wrote:

Feds investigating if alleged Hunter Biden emails connected to foreign intelligence operation: report

https://thehill.com/policy/national-sec ... nnected-to

WP wrote:

White House was warned Giuliani was target of Russian intelligence operation to feed misinformation to Trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

Seems there is some conventional media spreading misinformation to fuel outrage.....

best regards
Thomas

casinterest wrote:

Do we really need any more lessons after watching what the NYPost did yesterday by not vetting a story out and just running with it?

What it all means is that people need to have their BS detectors turned on and paying attention to those that would manipulate them.

I am not aware of any claims that the NYPost story was not vetted
Also that's media not social media

c933103 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Do we really need any more lessons after watching what the NYPost did yesterday by not vetting a story out and just running with it?

What it all means is that people need to have their BS detectors turned on and paying attention to those that would manipulate them.

I am not aware of any claims that the NYPost story was not vetted

they didn´t contact the Bidens for comment, which is standard practice, and fullfills the definition of "not vetted".

Since everybody else found out its made up nonsense in a couple of hours we do also know it wasn´t vetted.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

I am not aware of any claims that the NYPost story was not vetted

they didn´t contact the Bidens for comment, which is standard practice, and fullfills the definition of "not vetted".

The NYPost story https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-rev ... an-to-dad/ say, "Pozharskyi and the Joe Biden campaign did not return requests for comment. Hochstein could not be reached.", which indicate they have tried to reach those people.

Since everybody else found out its made up nonsense in a couple of hours we do also know it wasn´t vetted.

best regards
Thomas

I am not aware of report of "everybody else found out its made up nonsense" on international media, most media from Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong that I am aware of are continually covering the story without saying how it's nonsense.

Pyrex wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

Hard to argue NY Post is better at lying than the Atlantic, when the Atlantic managed to get their lies immediately spread out over all major media, domestically and internationally, when the NY Post got banned from disseminating their possible lies. The whole point of a lie is to convince people that what you are speaking is the truth, in that regards the Atlantic was a lot more effective.

Which article in the Atlantic would you be referring to? And how far was said article disseminated into the Twitter verse by rabid misinformation carriers?

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/m ... ue-n903238

Very far indeed...

Not saying Goldberg is ethically in the right in that CNN interview, but it’s bizarre to make a point on misinformation using PJ Media as a citation.

The nonpartisan Mediabias site rates PJ media a mixed bag on factual reporting and notes their reporting has failed several fact checks and promotes conspiracy theory. Not good.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pj-media/

Aaron747 wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Which article in the Atlantic would you be referring to? And how far was said article disseminated into the Twitter verse by rabid misinformation carriers?

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/m ... ue-n903238

Very far indeed...

Not saying Goldberg is ethically in the right in that CNN interview, but it’s bizarre to make a point on misinformation using PJ Media as a citation.

The nonpartisan Mediabias site rates PJ media a mixed bag on factual reporting and notes their reporting has failed several fact checks and promotes conspiracy theory. Not good.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pj-media/

Conspiracy theories like Trump dissing the troops so he doesn't have to visit a cemetery?

And the reason I had to resort to using PJ Media is precisely the reason why The Atlantic's lies are so effective - as soon as that news article came out everyone, from WaPo, to the NYT, to CNN ran with it 24/7 for several days, but once it started crumbling like a house of cards you heard nothing else from them. No retractions, no apologies, no investigations into the source of the lie, just memory-holing the whole thing. If you were to ask around today, I am sure many would still believe this is true - this is classic Goebbels tactics. Job done, Atlantic.

Pyrex wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

Hard to argue NY Post is better at lying than the Atlantic, when the Atlantic managed to get their lies immediately spread out over all major media, domestically and internationally, when the NY Post got banned from disseminating their possible lies. The whole point of a lie is to convince people that what you are speaking is the truth, in that regards the Atlantic was a lot more effective.

Which article in the Atlantic would you be referring to? And how far was said article disseminated into the Twitter verse by rabid misinformation carriers?

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/m ... ue-n903238

Very far indeed...

You realize PJMedia is a racist right wing rag right?

c933103 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Do we really need any more lessons after watching what the NYPost did yesterday by not vetting a story out and just running with it?

What it all means is that people need to have their BS detectors turned on and paying attention to those that would manipulate them.

I am not aware of any claims that the NYPost story was not vetted
Also that's media not social media

It is both in this day and age.

The unvetted and very suspect story was not vetted by NYPost, but a bunch of russian trolls, trolls, and political hacks that don't care about the truth just spread it around on social media as Gospel. Unfortunately most supporters of Trump that can barely read past a headline do not recognize the falseness of the story and every winds up wasting cycles to prove a lie was a lie.

casinterest wrote:

c933103 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Do we really need any more lessons after watching what the NYPost did yesterday by not vetting a story out and just running with it?

What it all means is that people need to have their BS detectors turned on and paying attention to those that would manipulate them.

I am not aware of any claims that the NYPost story was not vetted
Also that's media not social media

It is both in this day and age.

The unvetted and very suspect story was not vetted by NYPost, but a bunch of russian trolls, trolls, and political hacks that don't care about the truth just spread it around on social media as Gospel. Unfortunately most supporters of Trump that can barely read past a headline do not recognize the falseness of the story and every winds up wasting cycles to prove a lie was a lie.

You gotta hand it to those Russians, their Photoshop skills are amazing, even managed to get some pictures of Hunter Biden at the dentist fixing his meth mouth - that is astounding attention to detail.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/16/hunter-bi ... ined-soul/

Pyrex wrote:

You gotta hand it to those Russians, their Photoshop skills are amazing, even managed to get some pictures of Hunter Biden at the dentist fixing his meth mouth - that is astounding attention to detail.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/16/hunter-bi ... ined-soul/

Aren't photo account hacks one of the most common out there? How many public figures/"famous people" have had their photos hacked and released?

Tugg

Pyrex wrote:

casinterest wrote:

c933103 wrote:

I am not aware of any claims that the NYPost story was not vetted
Also that's media not social media

It is both in this day and age.

The unvetted and very suspect story was not vetted by NYPost, but a bunch of russian trolls, trolls, and political hacks that don't care about the truth just spread it around on social media as Gospel. Unfortunately most supporters of Trump that can barely read past a headline do not recognize the falseness of the story and every winds up wasting cycles to prove a lie was a lie.

You gotta hand it to those Russians, their Photoshop skills are amazing, even managed to get some pictures of Hunter Biden at the dentist fixing his meth mouth - that is astounding attention to detail.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/16/hunter-bi ... ined-soul/

We all know Hunter was, and still is, a cocaine addict and alcoholic. What the NYP also confirms is that Trump and his Mafia scumbag underlings like Bannon and Giuliani are still addicted to using foreign intelligence sources to hack into opponent computers to influence an election. And you and the GOP walk around with your erections saying how wonderful it all is. People that read this kind of drivel and can't see it for what it is, even with lights flashing, are doomed to to a life of pitiful and willful ignorance at best, at worst saddling this country with another generation of bottom feeder genes.

wingman wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

casinterest wrote:

It is both in this day and age.

The unvetted and very suspect story was not vetted by NYPost, but a bunch of russian trolls, trolls, and political hacks that don't care about the truth just spread it around on social media as Gospel. Unfortunately most supporters of Trump that can barely read past a headline do not recognize the falseness of the story and every winds up wasting cycles to prove a lie was a lie.

You gotta hand it to those Russians, their Photoshop skills are amazing, even managed to get some pictures of Hunter Biden at the dentist fixing his meth mouth - that is astounding attention to detail.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/16/hunter-bi ... ined-soul/

We all know Hunter was, and still is, a cocaine addict and alcoholic. What the NYP also confirms is that Trump and his Mafia scumbag underlings like Bannon and Giuliani are still addicted to using foreign intelligence sources to hack into opponent computers to influence an election. And you and the GOP walk around with your erections saying how wonderful it all is. People that read this kind of drivel and can't see it for what it is, even with lights flashing, are doomed to to a life of pitiful and willful ignorance at best, at worst saddling this country with another generation of bottom feeder genes.

Where was your concern about publishing stolen information when the New York Times was disclosing Trump's tax information?

Pyrex wrote:

wingman wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

You gotta hand it to those Russians, their Photoshop skills are amazing, even managed to get some pictures of Hunter Biden at the dentist fixing his meth mouth - that is astounding attention to detail.

https://nypost.com/2020/10/16/hunter-bi ... ined-soul/

We all know Hunter was, and still is, a cocaine addict and alcoholic. What the NYP also confirms is that Trump and his Mafia scumbag underlings like Bannon and Giuliani are still addicted to using foreign intelligence sources to hack into opponent computers to influence an election. And you and the GOP walk around with your erections saying how wonderful it all is. People that read this kind of drivel and can't see it for what it is, even with lights flashing, are doomed to to a life of pitiful and willful ignorance at best, at worst saddling this country with another generation of bottom feeder genes.

Where was your concern about publishing stolen information when the New York Times was disclosing Trump's tax information?

They had verified sources, with material tracing that could be proved. The post had none of that, and could not provide verified sourcing of the emails. In other words, it is as much a Sham as Trump's business projects.

Back to the topic about social media and some expectation that every information source must publish certain stories or information.

Where does that come from? Does FoxNews have to publish and promote every story out there? Does MSNBC?

If yes then why aren't they and why aren't you insisting your favored news source publish everything that you see on other news sites?

And If no, why does any other site have to publish what it freely available and visible and published on other sites?

And specific to social media, it is driven by the people participating. It is not vetted or promised to be accurate information. It tends to be "heat of the moment" to start with. Only after some time does any review occur and by that time everyone is happily in their bubble and only talking to and hearing from the people they want to. Social media is kinda crap, on ALL sides.

What am I missing?

Tugg

casinterest wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

wingman wrote:

We all know Hunter was, and still is, a cocaine addict and alcoholic. What the NYP also confirms is that Trump and his Mafia scumbag underlings like Bannon and Giuliani are still addicted to using foreign intelligence sources to hack into opponent computers to influence an election. And you and the GOP walk around with your erections saying how wonderful it all is. People that read this kind of drivel and can't see it for what it is, even with lights flashing, are doomed to to a life of pitiful and willful ignorance at best, at worst saddling this country with another generation of bottom feeder genes.

Where was your concern about publishing stolen information when the New York Times was disclosing Trump's tax information?

They had verified sources, with material tracing that could be proved. The post had none of that, and could not provide verified sourcing of the emails. In other words, it is as much a Sham as Trump's business projects.

That was not the issue at hand, his concern was with publishing stolen information. The people with access to Trump's tax records were 1) the IRS or 2) his advisors. Both of those parties have a legal obligation to keep the information they have on that topic confidential, so for any of those parties to release the information is a crime, same as hacking into someone's computer. Now for historical reasons journalists get away with publishing that kind of information without incurring in conspiracy charges (even when all they are doing is providing a platform for someone commiting a crime), but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way - pretty sure YouTube would get into trouble if their users suddenly started uploading child porn and they decided to promote that content on the front page, even if they were not the ones doing the actual child pornography.

Pyrex wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

Where was your concern about publishing stolen information when the New York Times was disclosing Trump's tax information?

They had verified sources, with material tracing that could be proved. The post had none of that, and could not provide verified sourcing of the emails. In other words, it is as much a Sham as Trump's business projects.

That was not the issue at hand, his concern was with publishing stolen information. The people with access to Trump's tax records were 1) the IRS or 2) his advisors. Both of those parties have a legal obligation to keep the information they have on that topic confidential, so for any of those parties to release the information is a crime, same as hacking into someone's computer. Now for historical reasons journalists get away with publishing that kind of information without incurring in conspiracy charges (even when all they are doing is providing a platform for someone commiting a crime), but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way - pretty sure YouTube would get into trouble if their users suddenly started uploading child porn and they decided to promote that content on the front page, even if they were not the ones doing the actual child pornography.

So you'd like to see an end to whistleblower protections, investigative journalism, the kinds of stories that have exposed countless crimes and lies throughout history and essentially just turn into Russia and China overnight. That's your solution, toe the Trump line..deviate and execution in Rose Garden at 11 PM. Trump has been boasting about his taxes and his wealth for decades and hiding behind a known and provable lie that "he can't share his returns while under audit". It's a wonderful thing to live a free country where journalists can practice their profession without fear of incarceration or torture to expose known liars and criminals. You and Trump are just so sad that his bullshit has been exposed, in a completely legal way by the NYT's I might add (the leak source maybe not so much), that you both fall back on the criminality of the leaker vs. addressing the con artist known as your President. Serious question, if you crave the kind of political system you indicate above you have Russia waiting for you with open arms. Put your hand on the flag, do your shot, kiss Putin's boot and voila, you'll think you died and went to heaven.

The NYP story? Hand delivered by Giuliani? To expose the fact that Hunter likes blow and hookers? He came out and said that himself the day Joe decided to run. To compare the tax story to cooperating with Russia intelligence services to hack a computer (funny no one in the GOP is talking about that double crime right there) in order to influence an election (make that three crimes) is utterly laughable. You guys aren't serious, absolute rank amateurs. You guys already knew Giuliani was damaged goods, with Bannon is back under investigation after surrendering to authorities for fraud charges, and yet you went back to these buffoonish cretins for another hit job? Christ Almighty, at least make an effort. Introduce some new characters, anything at all. What a joke.

Pyrex wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

Where was your concern about publishing stolen information when the New York Times was disclosing Trump's tax information?

They had verified sources, with material tracing that could be proved. The post had none of that, and could not provide verified sourcing of the emails. In other words, it is as much a Sham as Trump's business projects.

That was not the issue at hand, his concern was with publishing stolen information. The people with access to Trump's tax records were 1) the IRS or 2) his advisors. Both of those parties have a legal obligation to keep the information they have on that topic confidential, so for any of those parties to release the information is a crime, same as hacking into someone's computer. Now for historical reasons journalists get away with publishing that kind of information without incurring in conspiracy charges (even when all they are doing is providing a platform for someone commiting a crime), but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way - pretty sure YouTube would get into trouble if their users suddenly started uploading child porn and they decided to promote that content on the front page, even if they were not the ones doing the actual child pornography.

That's not the issue. the NYT has verified documents that they reviewed, and did NOT release to the public, The NYP posted UNVERIFIED trash that they can't back up.

wingman wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

casinterest wrote:

They had verified sources, with material tracing that could be proved. The post had none of that, and could not provide verified sourcing of the emails. In other words, it is as much a Sham as Trump's business projects.

That was not the issue at hand, his concern was with publishing stolen information. The people with access to Trump's tax records were 1) the IRS or 2) his advisors. Both of those parties have a legal obligation to keep the information they have on that topic confidential, so for any of those parties to release the information is a crime, same as hacking into someone's computer. Now for historical reasons journalists get away with publishing that kind of information without incurring in conspiracy charges (even when all they are doing is providing a platform for someone commiting a crime), but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way - pretty sure YouTube would get into trouble if their users suddenly started uploading child porn and they decided to promote that content on the front page, even if they were not the ones doing the actual child pornography.

So you'd like to see an end to whistleblower protections, investigative journalism, the kinds of stories that have exposed countless crimes and lies throughout history and essentially just turn into Russia and China overnight. That's your solution, toe the Trump line..deviate and execution in Rose Garden at 11 PM. Trump has been boasting about his taxes and his wealth for decades and hiding behind a known and provable lie that "he can't share his returns while under audit". It's a wonderful thing to live a free country where journalists can practice their profession without fear of incarceration or torture to expose known liars and criminals. You and Trump are just so sad that his bullshit has been exposed, in a completely legal way by the NYT's I might add (the leak source maybe not so much), that you both fall back on the criminality of the leaker vs. addressing the con artist known as your President. Serious question, if you crave the kind of political system you indicate above you have Russia waiting for you with open arms. Put your hand on the flag, do your shot, kiss Putin's boot and voila, you'll think you died and went to heaven.

The NYP story? Hand delivered by Giuliani? To expose the fact that Hunter likes blow and hookers? He came out and said that himself the day Joe decided to run. To compare the tax story to cooperating with Russia intelligence services to hack a computer (funny no one in the GOP is talking about that double crime right there) in order to influence an election (make that three crimes) is utterly laughable. You guys aren't serious, absolute rank amateurs. You guys already knew Giuliani was damaged goods, with Bannon is back under investigation after surrendering to authorities for fraud charges, and yet you went back to these buffoonish cretins for another hit job? Christ Almighty, at least make an effort. Introduce some new characters, anything at all. What a joke.

For it to be "whistleblower journalism" there has to be an inkling of malfeasance, something the New York Times, for all its efforts, was unable to ascertain, as even they admitted. If I publish your bank account information online just for shits and giggles that is not journalism, even if I caveat it with a "I can't prove Wingman did not get $200 from an ATM on January 16 to buy coke to snort off a stripper's ass".

That said, just because it is not journalism doesn't necessarily mean it is illegal, for historical reasons - just don't act all shocked when those protections happen to be used to publish information you don't want to see out in public.

Pyrex wrote:

If I publish your bank account information online just for shits and giggles that is not journalism, even if I caveat it with a "I can't prove Wingman did not get $200 from an ATM on January 16 to buy coke to snort off a stripper's ass".

You have to admit that is not what the NYT did, yes?

This site, this thread, could be considered part of the Social Media Misinformation problem. There are many posts with information that simply is not accurate nor backed up with links and factual information.

The is the whole problem in a nutshell. People say stuff and are convinced it is right (even if not true) and don't seem to care nor listen to others that try to add information. People just keep spouting whatever will try to reinforce the point they are trying to make and get other like-minded people to jump in.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

The is the whole problem in a nutshell. People say stuff and are convinced it is right (even if not true) and don't seem to care nor listen to others that try to add information. People just keep spouting whatever will try to reinforce the point they are trying to make and get other like-minded people to jump in.

Tugg

Well said. Trump not only boasts about his wealth and tax payment history, he then breaks with long-standing precedent by refusing to back up his claims with one of the great sources of truth about such things, his tax returns. To think that there are people that would not see an inkling of malfeasance there..it's a sad state of affairs, one that goes to the heart of your statement. People listen to Trump and take what he says as gospel, whether it's about his wealth, science or medicine. And yet at every turn he has proven himself to be a liar. Here was a beautiful chance to prove himself honest and he failed yet again. That's your problem in a nutshell, it's not that Trump is a professional liar and con artist, it's that people believe his schtick and use social media to convince people that the ones proving his lies are themselves criminals. It's the flip side of free speech and freedom himself. Just look at COVID 19, he said it was a hoax and yet they are, 217,000 bodies buried in the ground. I take some small comfort from the fact that Pyrex doesn't want to execute us all for talking about the dead. But who knows what the next post will bring.

Tugger wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

If I publish your bank account information online just for shits and giggles that is not journalism, even if I caveat it with a "I can't prove Wingman did not get $200 from an ATM on January 16 to buy coke to snort off a stripper's ass".

You have to admit that is not what the NYT did, yes?

This site, this thread, could be considered part of the Social Media Misinformation problem. There are many posts with information that simply is not accurate nor backed up with links and factual information.

And posters not showing up as "online" surprisingly seem to exclusively post on one side of the argument.

Best regards
Thomas

I've noticed almost every officer involved shooting seems to generate some amount of false narrative on the web. Who remembers how fast a narrative started in Ferguson that didn't even match verifiable eyewitness accounts, much less the sequence of events? With in a few weeks there was another officer involved shooting nearby and there was an immediate series of posts online claiming the man was unarmed and gunned down in cold blood, turned out he had been the aggressor and was very much armed. Too often I think, someone posts untrue or misleading info with out nay intention too do so it gets consumed and folks run with it before they seek to confirm anything, next thing you know the facts have been lost and replaced with emotion and bias.

Heck, this story I saw today is a great example of social media go crazy (over pumpkins and animals this time) - https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/10/13/ ... book-post/

casinterest wrote:

c933103 wrote:

I am not aware of any claims that the NYPost story was not vetted
Also that's media not social media

It is both in this day and age.

The unvetted and very suspect story was not vetted by NYPost, but a bunch of russian trolls, trolls, and political hacks that don't care about the truth just spread it around on social media as Gospel. Unfortunately most supporters of Trump that can barely read past a headline do not recognize the falseness of the story and every winds up wasting cycles to prove a lie was a lie.

What are the falsefulness?
I have tried to check report by some factchecking website on the issue, but one such even falsely attributed the incident as being a narrative revived by Trump, while another was simply ciring denial from Biden campaign, action by Twitter and Facebook, as well as lack of result from Senate investigation on the matter trying to act as prove.
Is such alleged falsefulness a "social media fueled outrage"?

Pyrex wrote:

For it to be "whistleblower journalism" there has to be an inkling of malfeasance, something the New York Times, for all its efforts, was unable to ascertain, as even they admitted. If I publish your bank account information online just for shits and giggles that is not journalism, even if I caveat it with a "I can't prove Wingman did not get $200 from an ATM on January 16 to buy coke to snort off a stripper's ass".

That said, just because it is not journalism doesn't necessarily mean it is illegal, for historical reasons - just don't act all shocked when those protections happen to be used to publish information you don't want to see out in public.

It is interesting, isn't it, that we have to be concerned and outraged over Hunter doing drugs and soliciting prostitutes but when Republicans do it, they "have a problem" or "it is a hit job" or "they are adults so who cares?". We can not care at all that money was used illegal to bribe a hooker so MAGA could "win" but Joe Biden can not be president because his son did the exact same thing.

Explain. I would love to hear this.

c933103 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

c933103 wrote:

I am not aware of any claims that the NYPost story was not vetted
Also that's media not social media

It is both in this day and age.

The unvetted and very suspect story was not vetted by NYPost, but a bunch of russian trolls, trolls, and political hacks that don't care about the truth just spread it around on social media as Gospel. Unfortunately most supporters of Trump that can barely read past a headline do not recognize the falseness of the story and every winds up wasting cycles to prove a lie was a lie.

What are the falsefulness?
I have tried to check report by some factchecking website on the issue, but one such even falsely attributed the incident as being a narrative revived by Trump, while another was simply ciring denial from Biden campaign, action by Twitter and Facebook, as well as lack of result from Senate investigation on the matter trying to act as prove.
Is such alleged falsefulness a "social media fueled outrage"?

See this TechCrunch article explaining some of the issues:

https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/14/suspe ... edia-bans/

Thomas Rid, a Professor of Strategic Studies at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, on Twitter has this Tweet chain explaining some of the issues he identified:

https://twitter.com/RidT/status/1316363540421316609

ThePointblank wrote:

c933103 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

It is both in this day and age.

The unvetted and very suspect story was not vetted by NYPost, but a bunch of russian trolls, trolls, and political hacks that don't care about the truth just spread it around on social media as Gospel. Unfortunately most supporters of Trump that can barely read past a headline do not recognize the falseness of the story and every winds up wasting cycles to prove a lie was a lie.

What are the falsefulness?
I have tried to check report by some factchecking website on the issue, but one such even falsely attributed the incident as being a narrative revived by Trump, while another was simply ciring denial from Biden campaign, action by Twitter and Facebook, as well as lack of result from Senate investigation on the matter trying to act as prove.
Is such alleged falsefulness a "social media fueled outrage"?

See this TechCrunch article explaining some of the issues:

https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/14/suspe ... edia-bans/

Thomas Rid, a Professor of Strategic Studies at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, on Twitter has this Tweet chain explaining some of the issues he identified:

https://twitter.com/RidT/status/1316363540421316609

My reading of this is that these sources think the conduct and morality of the computer shop in the leak is dubious, and then they also question the lack of verifiability of how the Post publish these leaks, as well as how the computer could fall into the hand of the computer shop owner, as well as denial from the side in question.
The point about morality of the computer shop accessing customer data is problematic but is itself moot in term of authenticity of those leaks, and for other points they make ot harder to tell whether it is an authentic report but didn't instantly falsity it.

casinterest wrote:

Do we really need any more lessons after watching what the NYPost did yesterday by not vetting a story out and just running with it?

What it all means is that people need to have their BS detectors turned on and paying attention to those that would manipulate them.

Who vetted the NYT story on Trumps taxes while we are at it? They were anonymous sources according to the times so how do we know if it is true? Even though I happen to believe it myself. This is my problem with you liberals total tunnel vision. Trump=bad...Biden=good. I believe Trump owes a ton of money to people and I believe he paid little taxes if any. But I also believe Biden has lined his families pockets with Chinese and Ukrainian influence peddling but go ahead only see one side of it.

stratosphere wrote:

Who vetted the NYT story on Trumps taxes while we are at it? They were anonymous sources according to the times so how do we know if it is true?

All part of the game the republicans taught the democrats to play.

There have been countless BS stories based on anonymous sources on fox alone. That’s not even counting the even more fringier sources like Alex Jones.

For that matter, Qanon prides itself on their anonymous reporting and republicans can’t seem to get enough of them!

stratosphere wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Do we really need any more lessons after watching what the NYPost did yesterday by not vetting a story out and just running with it?

What it all means is that people need to have their BS detectors turned on and paying attention to those that would manipulate them.

Who vetted the NYT story on Trumps taxes while we are at it? They were anonymous sources according to the times so how do we know if it is true? Even though I happen to believe it myself. This is my problem with you liberals total tunnel vision. Trump=bad...Biden=good. I believe Trump owes a ton of money to people and I believe he paid little taxes if any. But I also believe Biden has lined his families pockets with Chinese and Ukrainian influence peddling but go ahead only see one side of it.

Outlets like NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, etc. MUST vet everything. They already know they are hated by righties. They already know anything they say, even as simple as "the sky is blue" will be flagged as lies by the right. Compare that with Fox and AM talk radio and Washington Times and OAN who report a tiny sliver of the actual story but, because they are not "liberal" outlets, righties believe there needs to be no additional research.

We have emails that Hunter Biden, an adult man, did blow and hookers. We have speculation that he used his father's influence to get a job in Ukraine. No one bothers to ask if Eric or Junior do blow and hookers and not one peep from anyone on the right that Eric, Junior, and Ivanka all used their father's influence to make who knows how much money.

So, to paraphrase Stratosphere, the right wing media narrative is MAGA=good, anyone opposed to MAGA=bad.

stratosphere wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Do we really need any more lessons after watching what the NYPost did yesterday by not vetting a story out and just running with it?

What it all means is that people need to have their BS detectors turned on and paying attention to those that would manipulate them.

Who vetted the NYT story on Trumps taxes while we are at it? They were anonymous sources according to the times so how do we know if it is true? Even though I happen to believe it myself. This is my problem with you liberals total tunnel vision. Trump=bad...Biden=good. I believe Trump owes a ton of money to people and I believe he paid little taxes if any. But I also believe Biden has lined his families pockets with Chinese and Ukrainian influence peddling but go ahead only see one side of it.

Well at least you have Biden's tax records to dive into and help you build the path to show what you are hypothesizing. Trump committed to releasing his taxes but of course in character, he went back on his word.

So there's that.

Dig, Look. Find. Prove.

Tugg

petertenthije wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

Who vetted the NYT story on Trumps taxes while we are at it? They were anonymous sources according to the times so how do we know if it is true?

All part of the game the republicans taught the democrats to play.

There have been countless BS stories based on anonymous sources on fox alone. That’s not even counting the even more fringier sources like Alex Jones.

For that matter, Qanon prides itself on their anonymous reporting and republicans can’t seem to get enough of them!

So are you saying, because some from the other side did something bad by your book it is okay for your side to do the same? If so then what's the different between two side? And you're even quoting anonymous online distributor as a comparison to professional media.
Surely you can accuse the right for allowing all these to be said and hear, but the society contain much more than just the left and the right.
What good would it be that if under your suggestion, New York Times are to be trated by regular American as having same credibility as QAnon?